W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: CR-53 Response: Add built-in base64Binary and hexBinary types?

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:17:42 +0700
Message-ID: <3AAC5BF6.99A687C2@jclark.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
I am satisfied with this response.

At first, I was a bit concerned about the impact on specs such as XSLT
and XQuery of the removal of the binary type, and consequently having
two distinct types with the same value space but no common base type. 
However, on further reflection, it seems that keeping binary would
introduce its own complexities and anomalies, so I am content with the
WG's decision.

Aki Yoshida wrote:
> Dear James,
> The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several weeks
> working through the comments received from the public on the
> Candidate Recommendation (CR) of the XML Schema specification. We
> thank you for the comments you made on our specification during
> our CR comment period, and want to make sure you know that all
> comments received during the CR comment period have been recorded
> in our CR issues list (http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html).
> You raised the point registered as issue CR-53:
> Title: Add built-in base64Binary and hexBinary types?
> Resolution: The working group decided to add both base64Binary and
> hexBinary to the list of primitive types. Consequently, binary was removed
> from the list.
> It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
> decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
> WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
> the W3C.
> Regards
> Aki Yoshida
> XML Schema Working Group
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 00:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:54 UTC